IDA Pro MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool reads a value and has a compile-time address constraint, but it doesn't describe what happens if the address is invalid, whether it requires specific permissions, the return format, or error handling. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient, as key behavioral traits like safety, response structure, and limitations are missing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse and understand quickly without unnecessary details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (reading memory values), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return value looks like (e.g., data type, format), potential errors, or how it interacts with other tools like 'get_global_variable_value_by_name'. For a tool that likely returns critical data, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its full behavior and integration.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'ea' documented as 'Address of the global variable'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain the format of 'ea' (e.g., hexadecimal, decimal) or provide examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Read a global variable's value by its address (if known at compile-time)'. It specifies the verb ('Read'), resource ('global variable's value'), and constraint ('by its address', 'if known at compile-time'), making the function distinct. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'get_global_variable_value_by_name', which is a similar tool but uses a name instead of an address.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance: 'Prefer this function over the `data_read_*` functions.' This indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'data_read_byte', 'data_read_dword', etc., by suggesting it's the preferred choice for reading global variables. However, it doesn't specify when to use this over 'get_global_variable_value_by_name' or other siblings, leaving some context gaps.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.